Israel Bombs Milk, Pharmaceutical Factories, Aid Convoys, ChurchThe humanitarian crisis in Lebanon continues to worsen. At least 500,000 people have been displaced from their homes. Scores of roads and bridges have been hit making it hard to transport food or humanitarian aid. Recent Israeli strikes have targeted the country’s largest milk factory, a major food factory and two pharmaceutical plants. Earlier bombs hit water processing plants, power plants and grain silos. On Tuesday a convoy of two trucks carrying medical supplies donated by the United Arab Emirates was hit. The trucks were destroyed and both drivers died. The Israeli military has denied targeting the factories or aid trucks. Two ambulances were also bombed on Tuesday. They were carrying Lebanese soldiers who were injured in an Israeli attack on their base that had killed eleven soldiers. A Greek Orthodox Church also suffered a direct hit. Inside the church were civilians who had taken refuge. At least 10 people were injured.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Israel's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship heading to the Gaza Strip may have sparked outrage from the international community and soured relations with Ankara, but what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara might pale compared to what could happen if a confrontation occurs aboard a ship sailing from Lebanon.

Some 30 Lebanese women activists and 20 Europeans have announced their intention to set sail aboard the Mariam, named after the Virgin Mary, carrying medical supplies in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"Our only weapons are faith in the Virgin Mary and in humanity," a spokesperson for the group, comprised of Muslim and Christian women, told Agence France-Presse.

The Virgin Mary is a revered figure in Catholicism, Christianity and Islam, which recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

The Virgin Mary in the Qur'an is also a revered figure in Judaism since the Qur'an identifies Jesus' mother Mary as Amram's daughter and Aaron's sister.

Sarcasm aside, I personally do not like this "cooperation with Muslims" thing. It is true that Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, but it is also true that Islam denies Jesus' divinity, considers Christians equal to idolaters, blames Christians for changing the truth given to them and for worshipping three deities (Allah, Jesus and Mary!), denies Jesus' crucifixion and endorses the Gnostic theory of illusion, ..........

Every time I see a bunch of Christians supporting Muslims or siding with them against the members of other faiths, I remember with much sadness how a bishop in Ethiopia received in the days of Islam's birth the Muslims who escaped the wrath of pagan Meccans because those Muslims, unlike the pagans of Mecca, considered Jesus a prophet and believed in His miraculous conception. How did Mohammad reply to that favour? By writing the verse below and ascribing it to his moon god :

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (Surah 9:29)

Many Christians do not know that they are joining forces with wrong people. I, personally, would prefer one single fanatic Jew to 100 "moderate" Muslims.

Some 30 Lebanese women activists and 20 Europeans have announced their intention to set sail aboard the Mariam, named after the Virgin Mary, carrying medical supplies in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"Our only weapons are faith in the Virgin Mary and in humanity," a spokesperson for the group, comprised of Muslim and Christian women, told Agence France-Presse.

The Virgin Mary is a revered figure in Catholicism, Christianity and Islam, which recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

The Virgin Mary in the Qur'an is also a revered figure in Judaism since the Qur'an identifies Jesus' mother Mary as Amram's daughter and Aaron's sister.

Sarcasm aside, I personally do not like this "cooperation with Muslims" thing. It is true that Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, but it is also true that Islam denies Jesus' divinity, considers Christians equal to idolaters, blames Christians for changing the truth given to them and for worshipping three deities (Allah, Jesus and Mary!), denies Jesus' crucifixion and endorses the Gnostic theory of illusion, ..........

Every time I see a bunch of Christians supporting Muslims or siding with them against the members of other faiths, I remember with much sadness how a bishop in Ethiopia received in the days of Islam's birth the Muslims who escaped the wrath of pagan Meccans because those Muslims, unlike the pagans of Mecca, considered Jesus a prophet and believed in His miraculous conception. How did Mohammad reply to that favour? By writing the verse below and ascribing it to his moon god :

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (Surah 9:29)

Many Christians do not know that they are joining forces with wrong people. I, personally, would prefer one single fanatic Jew to 100 "moderate" Muslims.

P.S.: I am a former Muslim LOL

Your photo is very pretty. Where is it. I think you are being hard on yourself.

One way Christians dealt with oppressors in Pagan times was to witness to them and eat with them, despite the fact that their "god", the emperor, ordered them to kill the Christians.

I don't agree with having a Muslim or Jewish State anywhere, and probably not even a Christian theocracy before the Second Coming, since the rulers are too prone to abuse the faith. Yes, half-secular-Muslim Turkey discriminates against Christians, and it appears there is alot of unofficial discrimination against Christians in largely Muslim countries. On the other hand, if they are what we in industrialized countries call moderate or secular Muslims with good attitudes then I think we can have some trust and friendship. And in turn showing you care about them makes them more likely to show some kindness back.

As for Muslim religious texts, I heard some that sound bad on other topics. On the other hand, they talk about the need to get along with Christians and not hurt them. Their texts have alot of contradictions, and the secular Muslims try to resolve them positively. Personally I think the real reason behind fanaticism is socio-economic underdevelopment. With all due respect poor young people grow up in brick shacks, and having a foreign occupation makes things worse. This is my perception.

Sorry I can not say about "fanatical" Zionists. If I was living on land that a "fanatical" Zionist wanted, it would be probably be hard. I think they had a belief in Jesus' times that if they even touched a non-Jew they would have to wash themselves repeatedly.

Well, if you feel comfortable, maybe you would like to say a few things about what inspired you in Christianity.

Your photo is very pretty. Where is it. I think you are being hard on yourself.

One way Christians dealt with oppressors in Pagan times was to witness to them and eat with them, despite the fact that their "god", the emperor, ordered them to kill the Christians.

I don't agree with having a Muslim or Jewish State anywhere, and probably not even a Christian theocracy before the Second Coming, since the rulers are too prone to abuse the faith. Yes, secular-Muslim Turkey discriminates against Christians, and it appears there is alot of unofficial discrimination against Christians in largely Muslim countries. On the other hand, if they are what we in industrialized countries call moderate or secular Muslims with good attitudes then I think we can have some trust and friendship. And in turn showing you care about them makes them more likely to show some kindness back.

As for Muslim religious texts, I heard some that sound bad on other topics. On the other hand, they talk about the need to get along with Christians and not hurt them. Their texts have alot of contradictions, and the secular Muslims try to resolve them positively. Personally I think the real reason behind fanaticism is socio-economic underdevelopment. With all due respect poor young people grow up in brick shacks, and having a foreign occupation makes things worse. This is my perception.

Sorry I can not say about "fanatical" Zionists. If I was living on land that a "fanatical" Zionist wanted, it would be probably be hard. I think they had a belief in Jesus' times that if they even touched a non-Jew they would have to wash themselves repeatedly.

Well, if you feel comfortable, maybe you would like to say a few things about what inspired you in Christianity.

Kind Regards

rakovsky,

Sounds like you're not very well versed in Islamic theology and history, I am and this is what I can tell you about Muslim-Christian relations:

Love the Muslims - Yes.Pray for them - Yes.Share the Gospel with them - Yes.Trust them - No, no, no and NO!!!!!

Your photo is very pretty. Where is it. I think you are being hard on yourself.

One way Christians dealt with oppressors in Pagan times was to witness to them and eat with them, despite the fact that their "god", the emperor, ordered them to kill the Christians.

I don't agree with having a Muslim or Jewish State anywhere, and probably not even a Christian theocracy before the Second Coming, since the rulers are too prone to abuse the faith. Yes, secular-Muslim Turkey discriminates against Christians, and it appears there is alot of unofficial discrimination against Christians in largely Muslim countries. On the other hand, if they are what we in industrialized countries call moderate or secular Muslims with good attitudes then I think we can have some trust and friendship. And in turn showing you care about them makes them more likely to show some kindness back.

As for Muslim religious texts, I heard some that sound bad on other topics. On the other hand, they talk about the need to get along with Christians and not hurt them. Their texts have alot of contradictions, and the secular Muslims try to resolve them positively. Personally I think the real reason behind fanaticism is socio-economic underdevelopment. With all due respect poor young people grow up in brick shacks, and having a foreign occupation makes things worse. This is my perception.

Sorry I can not say about "fanatical" Zionists. If I was living on land that a "fanatical" Zionist wanted, it would be probably be hard. I think they had a belief in Jesus' times that if they even touched a non-Jew they would have to wash themselves repeatedly.

Well, if you feel comfortable, maybe you would like to say a few things about what inspired you in Christianity.

Kind Regards

rakovsky,

Sounds like you're not very well versed in Islamic theology and history, I am and this is what I can tell you about Muslim-Christian relations:

Love the Muslims - Yes.Pray for them - Yes.Share the Gospel with them - Yes.Trust them - No, no, no and NO!!!!!

Israel's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship heading to the Gaza Strip may have sparked outrage from the international community and soured relations with Ankara, but what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara might pale compared to what could happen if a confrontation occurs aboard a ship sailing from Lebanon.

Unlike Turkey, Lebanon and Israel are technically at war, although the border has been relatively quiet since the 2006 July War between Israel and the militant Shiite group Hezbollah.

Since that time, Israeli politicians have repeatedly warned that in the next round, the Lebanese government will be held responsible, leaving all of Lebanon open to attack...

Some 30 Lebanese women activists and 20 Europeans have announced their intention to set sail aboard the Mariam, named after the Virgin Mary, carrying medical supplies in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"Our only weapons are faith in the Virgin Mary and in humanity," a spokesperson for the group, comprised of Muslim and Christian women, told Agence France-Presse.

The Virgin Mary is a revered figure in Catholicism, Christianity and Islam, which recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

"Will the Israeli defense minister attack Europe or other countries sending aid to Gaza?" he added.

Although the activists of the Mariam have said they are not affiliated with any political organization in Lebanon, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Liwaa reported Friday that some Lebanese politicians had asked Hezbollah "not to give Israel a pretext to attack" the aid ship, suggesting just how volatile the current climate is.

This is no different than a German transport trying to resupply Italy or Japan in WWII, one enemy in a state of war is attempting to resupply another in a state of war. This ship should be torpedoed on the high seas.

Of course my friend. . Though this is not as simple as you think it is. The truth is honesty is not valued in Islam, the doctrine of Taqiya makes this very clear. Muhammad even approved of Muslims bowing to idols if felt compelled to do so as long as "their hearts remained firm in faith". Take it from me who almost got conned (by an ex-boyfriend who claim to be an apostate), and I probably would've if had I not done my research. Dawah (Islamic Evangelism) is not just "sharing the good news" it is war, it is a form of Jihad, an "Intellectual Jihad" if you will. Muslim apologists and even normal friendly Muslims (or crypto-Muslims in my case) are not above using deception when talking to you (the infidel) about their Faith. You really can never know for sure if a Muslim is telling you the truth.

Israel's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship heading to the Gaza Strip may have sparked outrage from the international community and soured relations with Ankara, but what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara might pale compared to what could happen if a confrontation occurs aboard a ship sailing from Lebanon.

Unlike Turkey, Lebanon and Israel are technically at war, although the border has been relatively quiet since the 2006 July War between Israel and the militant Shiite group Hezbollah.

Since that time, Israeli politicians have repeatedly warned that in the next round, the Lebanese government will be held responsible, leaving all of Lebanon open to attack...

Some 30 Lebanese women activists and 20 Europeans have announced their intention to set sail aboard the Mariam, named after the Virgin Mary, carrying medical supplies in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"Our only weapons are faith in the Virgin Mary and in humanity," a spokesperson for the group, comprised of Muslim and Christian women, told Agence France-Presse.

The Virgin Mary is a revered figure in Catholicism, Christianity and Islam, which recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

"Will the Israeli defense minister attack Europe or other countries sending aid to Gaza?" he added.

Although the activists of the Mariam have said they are not affiliated with any political organization in Lebanon, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Liwaa reported Friday that some Lebanese politicians had asked Hezbollah "not to give Israel a pretext to attack" the aid ship, suggesting just how volatile the current climate is.

This is no different than a German transport trying to resupply Italy or Japan in WWII, one enemy in a state of war is attempting to resupply another in a state of war. This ship should be torpedoed on the high seas.

You really can never know for sure if a Muslim is telling you the truth.

Wait a minute; your boyfriend lies and tries to con you, and because he's a Muslim, suddenly ALL Muslim's are suspect? What if he was just a jerk? No one likes to be lied to, especially by someone we love, but c'mon; blaming a person's religion seems a tad passé. We may as well start suspecting the Jews again for our money woes.

Apart from the blatant bigotry and prejudice of your assertions, it also seems that the fact that Islam isn't monolithic has escaped you. I was a conservative Muslim for ten years; I headed up the local Muslim Students' Association; I still speak a little Arabic and I have several copies of the Qur'an, all the collections of the Sunni hadith from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah as well as the Shi'a collection of Ali known as the Nahj al-Balagha. I also have several collections of Fiqh by several respected Fuqaha- the point being is that I have very rarely come across any of your ill-thought out assertions about lying and deceit in many Muslims; truthfulness is a virtue to them as it is to Christians and, I presume, Messianic Jews as well. For example; I was very close to the Indonesian/Malay Islamic communities and I can tell you that they are nothing like their Arab co-religionists.

If I were you, rather than villifying an entire group of people, just admit you had some relationship troubles and move on.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 07:54:06 PM by GabrieltheCelt »

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I did not say that all Muslims are liars, I said that one can never know for sure whether they are telling the truth when they are talking about their faith to non-Muslims thanks to the doctrines like Kithman and Taqiyya which I'm sure you're well aware of. Deceptive tactics are employed by Muslim apologists and evangelists on a regular basis. Even Muslims who are not professional apologists or evangelists do this when they are discussing their faith with unbelievers. Some like my ex go to the extreme of "playing the part of an infidel" in order to hook in potential converts and they have plenty of Quran and Hadith grounds to do this with a clear conscience. I'm not denying that Islam isn't monolithic, but I'm also not denying that permission to be dishonest with infidels is orthodox Islamic teaching:

Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. (Surah 16:106)

This refers to a group of people who were oppressed in Mecca and whose position with their own people was weak, so they went along with them when they were tried by them… Allah tells them that after this, meaning after their giving in (to the non-Muslims by denying their faith) when put to the test, He will forgive them and show mercy to them when they are resurrected. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

The nonbelievers arrested `Ammar Ibn Yasir and tortured him until he uttered foul words about the Prophet (Muhammad), and praised their gods and idols; and when they released him, he went straight to the Prophet. The Prophet said: "Is there something on your mind?" `Ammar Ibn Yasir said: "Bad news! They would not release me until I defamed you and praised their gods!" The Prophet said: "How do you find your heart to be?" `Ammar answered: "Comfortable with faith." So the Prophet said: "Then if they come back for you, then do the same thing all over again." Allah at that moment revealed the verse: "....except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith... (Confirmed by At-Tabari and narrated by Abd al-Razak, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book "al- Dala-il," http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html)

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except that you guard yourselves fully against them (Surah 3:28)

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships... Allah warned against such behavior when He said, ‘O you who believe! Take not my enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them. And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.’ And, ‘O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.’. Allah said next, ‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them,’ meaning, except those (Muslims) who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Ultimately I think we have to say that Islam teaches some bad things or else we would not be Christians. Likewise, official Old Testament Judaism teaches some bad-sounding things like stoning converts from Judaism, and the State of Israel punishes Christian evangelizing with 5 years in prison.

Many religious Jews reject those strict teachings and have "Reformed" communities. Perhaps they are wrong to do so from a conservative standpoint. The fanatics have an official practice of "mobbing" and spitting on Christians (see Youtube).

Likewise, I met a large number of very nice Muslims in Russia who we could call really secular Muslims, like from Azerbaijan and the Ural mountains. Alot of this is due to the Soviet Union's economic modernization. In Afghanistan, the Uzbeks are I believe the UN's best ally- they let women get educated etc. Perhaps in doing so they go against conflicting Muslim teachings.

That does not dimish Nazarene's experience or that the Saudi, Afghan, Pakistani freedom fighters the US backed in the Cold War- are scary. Not to mention unofficial discrimination against the EP in Turkey.

If you feel comfortable, you could say a few words about your inspiration in Christianity, Gabriel

You really can never know for sure if a Muslim is telling you the truth.

Wait a minute; your boyfriend lies and tries to con you, and because he's a Muslim, suddenly ALL Muslim's are suspect? What if he was just a jerk? No one likes to be lied to, especially by someone we love, but c'mon; blaming a person's religion seems a tad passé. We may as well start suspecting the Jews again for our money woes.

Gabriel,

There is no use trying to personalize the issue. Nazarene backed up her assertions with references.

Apart from the blatant bigotry and prejudice of your assertions, it also seems that the fact that Islam isn't monolithic has escaped you. I was a conservative Muslim for ten years; I headed up the local Muslim Students' Association; I still speak a little Arabic and I have several copies of the Qur'an, all the collections of the Sunni hadith from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah as well as the Shi'a collection of Ali known as the Nahj al-Balagha. I also have several collections of Fiqh by several respected Fuqaha- the point being is that I have very rarely come across any of your ill-thought out assertions about lying and deceit in many Muslims; truthfulness is a virtue to them as it is to Christians and, I presume, Messianic Jews as well. For example; I was very close to the Indonesian/Malay Islamic communities and I can tell you that they are nothing like their Arab co-religionists.

If I were you, rather than villifying an entire group of people, just admit you had some relationship troubles and move on.

I agree with Nazarene that we can never trust Muslims. This is because Islam has the overt ideal of making the WHOLE WORLD subject to Islam and the law of the Qur'an by ANY means (including the sword). Muslims who read their Qur'an well know that they are not allowed to befriend Jews and Christians:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (Surah 5:51)

This is what the Qur'an further teaches about Jews and Christians:

Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieveth after this will go astray from a plain road. And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. (Surah 5:12-13)

And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork. (Surah 5:14)

How can you trust Muslims in the light of these verses? How can you expect them to love Christians and show them mercy?

I did not say that all Muslims are liars, I said that one can never know for sure whether they are telling the truth when they are talking about their faith.... to non-Muslims thanks to the doctrines like Kithman and Taqiyya which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I'm not trying to personalize this, but based on your past usage of the highly offensive word 'Muhammadan' and comments like this:

Of course my friend. . Though this is not as simple as you think it is. The truth is honesty is not valued in Islam,

it seems that you indeed do see all Muslims as suspect. And the verse from the Qur'an, along with accompanying ahadith, make it clear that Muslims are allowed to be deceptive for self-preservation only and not for any other reason.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 06:01:29 AM by GabrieltheCelt »

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

How can you trust Muslims in the light of these verses? How can you expect them to love Christians and show them mercy?

Again, Muslims are not one monolithic bloc; within Islam there are many differing branches and schools of thought. Saying such and such is true of all Muslims is akin to saying such and such is true of all Christians. Any rational person knows this to be untrue. And to answer your questions, many Muslims have proven themselves to be trustworthy. In my experience, there have been Muslims I would trust before some Christians I have known. Some Muslims are liars, same as adherents to any other religion/faith. It's odd that we're having such a conversation.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I'm not trying to personalize this, but based on your past usage of the highly offensive word 'Muhammadan' and comments like this:

What is so offensive about the word "Muhammadan?" It means "belonging to Mohammad/of Mohammad's faith". It is similar to the word "Christian".

I thought you told us you were once a Muslim? In light of this, I'm having a difficult time understanding your sincerity with such questions. Never-the-less, for the benefit of others, Muslims do not see themselves as 'belonging to Muhammad' in any sense whatsoever. Christians, OTOH, do see themselves as belonging to Christ.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 06:15:03 AM by GabrieltheCelt »

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I'm not trying to personalize this, but based on your past usage of the highly offensive word 'Muhammadan' and comments like this:

What is so offensive about the word "Muhammadan?" It means "belonging to Mohammad/of Mohammad's faith". It is similar to the word "Christian".

I thought you told us you were once a Muslim? In light of this, I'm having a difficult time understanding your sincerity with such questions. Never-the-less, for the benefit of others, Muslims do not see themselves as 'belonging to Muhammad' in any sense whatsoever. Christians, OTOH, do see themselves as belonging to Christ.

Gabriel,

You are free to consider me insincere because of what I write as I am free to consider you prejudiced because of what you write.

I know a few Muslims who call themselves "Muhammadi". Muslims also call Jews "Musavi" (belonging to Moses) and Christians "Isavi" (belonging to Isa). Muslims also claim that their faith is Abrahamic. Surah 22:78 urges believers to join the "millat of Ibrahim". More on this:

Say: Allah speaketh truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, the upright. He was not of the idolaters. (Surah 3:95)

Muslims are identified in the Qur'an as Mohammad's followers:

And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. (Surah 3:20)

I cannot be blamed for being offensive because of using the word "Mohammadan" whilst the Qur'an allows that usage. Muslims make up rules that are alien to their scripture and impose them on non-Muslims. Needless sensitivity!

It is a moot point and a poor understanding of the flexible nature of the English language. Lutherans do not see themselves as 'belonging to Luther' nor is Christ's position within the faith in any jeopardy or suspect to any confusion based on said label.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

I agree with Nazarene that we can never trust Muslims. This is because Islam has the overt ideal of making the WHOLE WORLD subject to Islam and the law of the Qur'an by ANY means (including the sword).

Yes that is the essence of Jihad - to eliminate any other belief by any means necessary no matter how long it takes. At times this involves pulling out "the sword", which was more common in early Islam (and increasing in modern Islam). Nowadays with Muslims migrating to west where Islam is not the dominate belief the struggle is more commonly fought on an intellectual level. The point is it's still Jihad, Muslim evangelist do want to eventually turn the US, Canada and Europe into Muslim societies governed by Shari'ah. Dar al-Islam (House of Believers) is at war with Dar al-Harb (House of Unbelievers), and Muhammad famously said: "War is deception." (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 14, Number 2631: Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik), which has huge implications for Muslim-non-Muslim interaction regarding interfaith dialog and politics. Muslims will twist their holy writ, omit or deny unpleasant facts about their history and even outright lie to our faces about what their holy writ says.

Muslims who read their Qur'an well know that they are not allowed to befriend Jews and Christians:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (Surah 5:51)

This is what the Qur'an further teaches about Jews and Christians:

Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieveth after this will go astray from a plain road. And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. (Surah 5:12-13)

And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork. (Surah 5:14)

How can you trust Muslims in the light of these verses? How can you expect them to love Christians and show them mercy?

Well me personally I cannot trust them, and would be foolish to do so knowing that they can justifiably string me along until they feel they no longer need to and then stab me in the back. And I don't expect them to love Christians and show them mercy because they are not required to. After all, their holy book emphatically states that their god does not love unbelievers so why should they?

I did not say that all Muslims are liars, I said that one can never know for sure whether they are telling the truth when they are talking about their faith.... to non-Muslims thanks to the doctrines like Kithman and Taqiyya which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I'm not trying to personalize this, but based on your past usage of the highly offensive word 'Muhammadan'

Oh how I miss the days when theologians called Muslims what they really are (i.e. Muhammadans) and spoke of the "Judeo-Christian" world view instead of the "Abrahamic faiths". Theologically speaking it is not inaccurate to call the followers of Islam Muhammadans, and it's especially fitting for the traditional/conservative adherents who honestly try their best to imitate that thieving, murderous rapist and pedophile in every way imaginable.

I know that the label "Muhammadan" is offensive for many modern Muslims but so what? The truth is they are Muhammadans because that's who they choose to believe, despite the efforts of the Church to lovingly show them that he was a fraud. Their prophet blasphemed my God and His Son, and on top of cursed me for holding to the Biblical teachings. Muslims know how I and other "People of the Book" feel about this but do you think they care?

I'm sorry but I'm very un-PC regarding this religion that tries to attribute itself to the God I worship and my forefather Abraham, and tries to rob me of my own peoples' history in the Holy Land.

Of course my friend. . Though this is not as simple as you think it is. The truth is honesty is not valued in Islam,

it seems that you indeed do see all Muslims as suspect. And the verse from the Qur'an, along with accompanying ahadith, make it clear that Muslims are allowed to be deceptive for self-preservation only and not for any other reason.

Unfortunately Islamic theology (again I'm referring to orthodox theology) demands that non-Muslims see all Muslims as suspect. This is unfortunate for those who are genuinely not trying to con unbelievers but then again, can these people really be considered "true Muslims"? They are in fact disobeying what holy writ says when genuinely befriending kuffar, are they not?

As for "self-preservation" being the only reason where deception is allowed, that's not true:

Taqiyya is also allowed in order to gain wealth:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you to escape persecution?" The Prophet excused him and said: "Say whatever you have to say." ( Al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html)

It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill Shaaban. The would-be killer asked the prophet's permission to lie. Mohammed agreed and then ordered the killer to lie by stating that he was a member of the Khazaa clan. When Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, "From what tribe are you?" Abdullah answered, "From Khazaa." He then added, "I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight Mohammed and I came to join you." Abdullah started walking with Shaaban telling him how Mohammed came to them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and ruined the Arab's hopes. They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban's tent. Shaaban's companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside and rest. Abdullah sat there until the atmosphere was quiet and he sensed that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban's head and carried it to Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly shouted, "Your face has been triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho)." Abdullah returned the greeting by saying, "It is your face, Apostle of Allah, who has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah)." (Islam Review, Lying in Islam, Abdullah Al Araby http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml)

And to attain goals and prosperity:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible. (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, (Amana publications, 1997), section r8.2, p 745)

Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity. (Ulum id Din pp. 3,137 As quoted in Islam and Terrorism, Mark Gabriel (Lake Mary, Charisma House 2002), p. 95)

And to hook in potential converts:

The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. (Islam Review, Lying in Islam, Abdullah Al Araby http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml)

You are free to consider me insincere because of what I write as I am free to consider you prejudiced because of what you write.

I know a few Muslims who call themselves "Muhammadi". Muslims also call Jews "Musavi" (belonging to Moses) and Christians "Isavi" (belonging to Isa). Muslims also claim that their faith is Abrahamic. Surah 22:78 urges believers to join the "millat of Ibrahim". More on this:

Say: Allah speaketh truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, the upright. He was not of the idolaters. (Surah 3:95)

Muslims are identified in the Qur'an as Mohammad's followers:

And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. (Surah 3:20)

I cannot be blamed for being offensive because of using the word "Mohammadan" whilst the Qur'an allows that usage. Muslims make up rules that are alien to their scripture and impose them on non-Muslims. Needless sensitivity!

I did not say that all Muslims are liars, I said that one can never know for sure whether they are telling the truth when they are talking about their faith to non-Muslims

And this isn't equally true of Christian apologists? Ever hear of William Lane Craig? He's probably one of the "greatest" Christian apologists/debaters in the world, yet having heard dozens of his debates I believe he uses deceptive practices all the time. Like when he claims "all/most Biblical scholars" believe in so and so historical point. When what he really means is by most, is most of the five guys he reads agree.

Very few people are skilled enough in the topics he's studied for 25 years to catch him in the act, but occasionally it happens, and he ends up basically speechless. In fact the only ones who actually ever catch him are usually Biblical scholars like Bart Erhman, JD Crossan, and others....even Christopher Hitchens got slaughtered (or so the reviews said I have not listened to their debate yet) in his debate with Craig. And it wasn't because Craig was being 100% honest.

Quote

Deceptive tactics are employed by Muslim apologists and evangelists on a regular basis. Even Muslims who are not professional apologists or evangelists do this when they are discussing their faith with unbelievers.

No different than when Christians gloss over contradictions in the Bible, or how Catholics say "Peter was the first Pope" and mean that Peter understood his role in exactly the same way as the current Pope does. Or when Orthodox Christians say things like "our Liturgy is unchanged since the 5th century" which is not true either.

Sometimes these things are done deliberately, other times it's just because people believe what they were told by others without investigating it on their own. But Christians of all walks do the same things that you say Muslims do. That doesn't mean I suspect EVERY Christian of doing that. At least not anymore than I suspect anyone of any walk of life trying to do such things.

Quote

Some like my ex go to the extreme of "playing the part of an infidel" in order to hook in potential converts and they have plenty of Quran and Hadith grounds to do this with a clear conscience.

I've heard Christian apologists claim that if God told them to murder their neighbor, then they would DO IT and this would be a GOOD thing because God told them to. And they would have plenty of backing in the Bible to support such an extreme belief. Does this mean all Christians are nuts? Or just the guy who said this?

It's very easy as humans to group people into "the other", especially when we've had a bad experience, or several bad experiences with people from that group. I've done it myself, many, many times. But I try to remind myself to see each individual as individuals and not like the Borg Collective. Heck, even the Borg had 3 of 5, and 7 of 9. Not to mention Locutis/Picard and Data. And then there was unimatrix zero, where . . . . my point is, that Star Trek has much to teach about seeing people as people, this is a lesson Picard was resistant to, especially when he blew away one of the "redshirts" on the Holodeck in First Contact. He forgot that even as a Borg there was an individual still there, and took out his hidden anger on the poor guy. It took someone from the 21st century to set him straight by refering to him as Captain Ahab hunting his whale.

(yes, I'm a scifi geek)

The message is sound though. And is very Christian as I see it. Jesus saw the masses of people not as masses, but as individuals, and as individuals all connected together. We tend to be "tribal" and picture other groups as sinister, even "the good ones"...I have done it myself. And will do it again sadly. But I can say just because one or 10 Muslims did something bad to you, doesn't mean ALL Muslims behave that way. Nor do all Christians, or whatever group it is one has trouble dealing with. Like Picard learned, we need to see a PERSON before we the Borg, and not the Borg before we see the person. Of course if you're not into Star Trek, this will all be utter nonsense!

I am an Iranian just like you. I just had some questions regarding your website.

First of all you should know that i am not a muslim and i don’t care about what you write but:

1. Why are you attacking only islam? How about the versers in bible where it says that Jesus didnt came but giving the sword….and if you read the whole verse….you will find more….and ive heard many apologies claim that it is only for the persecution….but if you read whole bible…you will find out that it is like the quran.

Dear Amir,

I am not a Christian, but you are misunderstanding Jesus when he said, “I did not come to bring peace, but the sword.” What he meant was that if you choose to follow him, be prepared to sacrifice. You will be persecuted and dealt with the sword.

I'm not trying to personalize this, but based on your past usage of the highly offensive word 'Muhammadan' and comments like this:

What is so offensive about the word "Muhammadan?" It means "belonging to Mohammad/of Mohammad's faith". It is similar to the word "Christian".

I thought you told us you were once a Muslim? In light of this, I'm having a difficult time understanding your sincerity with such questions. Never-the-less, for the benefit of others, Muslims do not see themselves as 'belonging to Muhammad' in any sense whatsoever. Christians, OTOH, do see themselves as belonging to Christ.

Gabriel,

You are free to consider me insincere because of what I write as I am free to consider you prejudiced because of what you write.

I know a few Muslims who call themselves "Muhammadi". Muslims also call Jews "Musavi" (belonging to Moses) and Christians "Isavi" (belonging to Isa).

I've highlighted the important part of your point. In all my years as a Muslim, I never heard or read Muslims call themselves Muhammadan's. I've had many interactions with Muslims from the Maghreb, Mashriq, the Balkans as well as Southeast Asia; none of them identified themselves as belonging to or servants of Muhammad.

You see, as you well know, Christians are called as such because we worship Christ; he is the central figure in our faith. In times of old, people saw the importance of Muhammad to Muslims and assumed "Muhammadan" was an accurate description. He is important, but only as the messenger of God; Muhammad is not The Message nor God. Certain sects within Islam, such as a few branches of Sufism, could be accurately called "Muhammdadan" owing to their usage of the phrase, "Nur ul Muhammad - The Light of Muhammad", but this is in very rare cases as the majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a oppress such teachings.

I agree with Nazarene that we can never trust Muslims. This is because Islam has the overt ideal of making the WHOLE WORLD subject to Islam and the law of the Qur'an by ANY means (including the sword).

Yes that is the essence of Jihad - to eliminate any other belief by any means necessary no matter how long it takes.

It's painfully evident that an understanding of Arabic/Islam is missing here. As with Hebrew, Arabic words have a tri-consonant root word. "Jihad" comes from the tri-consonant root word of "jhd -jahad". Contrary to popular Evangelical Christian understanding, the word actually means "To struggle, to make an effort". Theologically speaking, it takes on a moral tone. If I am wronged, I must make an effort, a struggle, to not make two wrongs. We see this countless times in our Scripture and Tradition, perhaps most importantly in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our sins (trespasses/wrongs), as we forgive those who sin against us." In Islam, it also takes on another meaning, "Defense, fight back". If your family, city, country is under attack, Islam gives pardon to those who would fight back. But the Qur'an makes it clear that once the aggression has ended against you, you are to stop as well. This aspect of "Jihad" has been reformulated by many extremist factions of Islam but classically speaking, this isn't what "Jihad" means.

How can you trust Muslims in the light of these verses? How can you expect them to love Christians and show them mercy?

Again, Muslims are not one monolithic bloc; within Islam there are many differing branches and schools of thought. Saying such and such is true of all Muslims is akin to saying such and such is true of all Christians. Any rational person knows this to be untrue. And to answer your questions, many Muslims have proven themselves to be trustworthy. In my experience, there have been Muslims I would trust before some Christians I have known. Some Muslims are liars, same as adherents to any other religion/faith. It's odd that we're having such a conversation.

I am quoting a verse from the Qur'an and asking a simple question how a Muslim that believes in the Qur'an and obeys it can show Christians mercy, but you are referring to the disagreement within Islam. These are not relevant.

If Muslims have proven themselves to be trustworthy, it is both good and bad for them. Good because we can trust them, bad because they disobey a commandment of their scripture and thus betray Islam by befriending Christians and ignoring the ideal of the global Islamic reign.

Jihad has been interpreted by Muslims in different ways. The Muslim sect of the Kharijites has elevated Jihad to one of the Five Pillars of Islam Â— making it Six Pillars. This kind of belief is seen in the extremist Muslim groups we call terrorists. They use the concept of Jihad as a justification for killing anyone who isn't a Muslim. However, most Muslims disagree with this extremist position of some Muslims and advocate peace. These Muslims view Jihad as a spiritual struggle against evil in a metaphorical sense.1

Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi, chairman of the Islamic Information Foundation in Halifax, insists that a jihad is `permitted only in self-defense or against tyranny and oppression -- not as a tool to promote Islam.'' But, experts added, the ancient Islamic empires were built as much by force as by persuasion. Islam's founder, Mohammed, frequently used force, or the threat of it, to unify the nomadic tribes of the Arabian peninsula. The caliphs, who succeeded Mohammed as leaders of the Arab world, successfully took up arms against the Christian Byzantine Empire in Egypt and the Holy Land. By the end of the ninth century, Arabian armies had extended Islamic power from Spain to the borders of India.2

Anyone who has studied Islamic history must surely notice how frequently the Muslims were involved in battle after battle. Within 200 years after its inception, Islam had spread through a huge geographical area and many converts were made by the sword.

What does the Qur'an say about Jihad?

The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam. It is the scripture given from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Does the Qur'an teach Jihad? Absolutely yes. As you will see in the following quotes from the Qur'an, Holy War is definitely taught and encouraged.

"Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure" (Surah 61:4).

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits... 191And slay them wherever ye catch them. and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. 192 But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (The Qur'an, Surah 2:190-193).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things," (Surah 9:38-39).

See also Surah 4:74-76; 61:10-12.

What does the Hadith say about Jihad?

The Hadith are the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is second in authority only to the Qur'an and is often used to clarify things not specified in the Qur'an. What did Muhammad say about Jihad as recorded in the Hadith?

"The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira

"Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira

"Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira.

Obviously Muhammad taught that Holy War was an acceptable and good thing to do. To clarify, he even stated that if a Muslim were to die in battle, fighting for the cause of Allah, that he would be guaranteed to go to Paradise.

Why is this important?

Why is understanding the Islamic position of Jihad important? Simple. People act according to their beliefs. If a large group of people believes that war against "unbelievers" is a holy thing, that it is a thing sanctioned from God, then those who are not Muslims should be concerned. Of course, at this point, most Muslims might accuse me of being sensationalistic and pointing to only a few extremists and out-of-context verses to make Islam look bad. First, let me say that by far the majority of Muslims I have encountered here in the United States have been polite and peace loving. Second, in other parts of the world, Jihad is taken to extremes not simply by terrorists, but by Islamic led governments.

In Egypt, a Muslim country, Christians have been persecuted heavily for their faith and only recently are things beginning to change.3

"Roman Catholic Bishop John Joseph of Pakistan shot himself to death on May 6 to highlight the case of Ayub Massih, a Christian sentenced to death for supposedly making blasphemous remarks against the Prophet Muhammad and thus against Islam. In a letter sent to a local newspaper just before his death, the bishop stated that he hoped his suicide would galvanize his fellow bishops and others to work for the repeal of sections 295 B and Cot the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which make any blasphemy against Islam a serious crime and blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death."4

"Farag Foda, an Egyptian intellectual who expressed scorn for the Islamist program, was shot and murdered. And Naguib Mahfouz, the elderly and much-celebrated Nobel Prize laureate for literature, was seriously injured in Cairo when an assailant knifed him in the neck, presumably in revenge for an allegorical novel written decades earlier."5

"Hundreds of thousands of Muslims assembled in Jakarta and declared a holy war against Indonesian Christians shortly after dawn Friday to avenge the deaths of Muslims in religious clashes in the Maluku Islands (the Spice Islands). Assembled in central Jakarta, the Muslims shouted "Jihad (Holy War)! Jihad!" Most of those gathered wore white robes and white bandannas marked with quotes from the Koran about the "Holy War." It is time for us to do a jihad against Christians," said Husen al-Habsyi, a former political prisoner, who was jailed for masterminding an explosion in the Borobudur Buddhist Temple in the early 1980s.6

This Christmas season, Pastor Rod Parsley is taking a lead in an effort to help free the tens of thousands of Sudanese women and children held in captivity in the Sudan, many of which are Christians. This great effort will help stem the horrific tide of genocide and enslavement of Christians in the African nation. Bridge of Hope, the missions outreach of Breakthrough is located in Columbus, Ohio...The Government of Sudan, a fundamentalist regime that represents only 10% of the population in Sudan, has declared a holy war (jihad) against Christians and animists in their own country. Since 1985, this reign of terror is responsible for the murder of over 2 million Sudanese ... and over 4 million have been displaced. The Government of Sudan will not stop short of total annihilation of all Christians and all others that do not believe in this totalitarian regime...During Government sponsored raids in peaceful villages, men are killed; village elders are hacked with machetes and left for dead; the village is burned and devastated; and women and children are captured as slaves. Slaves are subjected by their masters to systematic physical and psychological torture, including gang rape, beatings, death threats, genital mutilation and forcible conversion to Islam.7

Anyone can make any group look bad through selective quotes. Each religious group has elements of its history it wish it could ignore. The Muslims could cite the Crusades or the Inquisition as examples of "Christian behavior." In response, the Crusades, right or wrong, were a retaliation against the Islamic Jihad that was sweeping through Europe. The Inquisition, on the other hand, is a perfect example of what happens when a religious group (the Roman Catholic Church) gets in power and tries to root out heretics and blasphemers. Islam is no different.

The Islamic run country of Pakistan (No. 9 above) has anti blasphemy laws where the punishment for speaking blasphemy against Muhammad and the Qur'an is death. Islamic run Sudan has already killed, and still is killing, millions of people, mainly Christians, in its own country in addition to making many of them slaves. (No. 12 above). It is these kinds of facts that cannot be ignored and should not be ignored. Muslim and Christian alike should be very concerned.

I do not know if other Muslim countries are condemning the actions of these Islamic nations that so easily violate human rights. I do not know if Muslims outside of those countries are even aware of the problems going on within their theologically diverse ranks of other nations. But, when a Holy Book like the Qur'an advocates Holy War, when the very sayings and deeds of their beloved Prophet Muhammad advocate Jihad, and when we see some Islamic nations killing non Muslims Â— because they are not Muslims, how can we not be worried about what they would do if they had control of the world....as is their goal.

Here in the States, Muslims enjoy freedom of religion and expression. Such freedoms for Christians are basically non existent in many Islamic nations. Is that right?

____________________

Sukhvinder Stubbs, The New Stateman, LTD, "The hooded hordes of prejudice: to typecast all Muslims as fanatical militants is unfair and offensive," Feb 28, 1997.

Jihad means striving. It is used to describe the inner struggle against sin as well as the outer struggle against those who would oppose Islam. Did Muhammad teach Holy War upon those who reject Islam? Yes he did.

Following are various quotes from the Hadith dealing with killing people.

The second best deed is to participate in Jihad

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira:

Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill him

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima. Also, see Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64, Narrated 'Ali.

Muhammad approves of killing someone who hurt him and having the killer lie

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. .." Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah.

Paradise was guaranteed to the first to take part in a naval battle

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Him with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175 Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

Those who fight in Jihad have the right to the spoils of the conquered or Paradise if he dies

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira.

." . . "This is the Will of Allah, "After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils." I got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and then sat down. The Prophet again said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." I (again) got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Qatada! What is your story?" Then I narrated the whole story to him. A man (got up and) said, "O Allah's Apostle! He is speaking the truth, and the spoils of the killed man are with me. So please compensate him on my behalf." On that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, "No, by Allah, he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) will not agree to give you the spoils gained by one of Allah's Lions who fights on the behalf of Allah and His Apostle." The Prophet said, "Abu Bakr has spoken the truth." So, Allah's Apostle gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 370, Narrated Abu Qatada.

." . . . While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)." Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386, Narrated Jubair bin Haiya.

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555, Narrated Abu Huraira:

I've highlighted the important part of your point. In all my years as a Muslim, I never heard or read Muslims call themselves Muhammadan's. I've had many interactions with Muslims from the Maghreb, Mashriq, the Balkans as well as Southeast Asia; none of them identified themselves as belonging to or servants of Muhammad.

Correction: I never claimed that the term "Mohammadi" or "Mohammadan" means "servant of Mohammad". Islam does not worship Mohammad. Your response illustrates how Muslims become offensive because they misunderstand the sense of a word.

You see, as you well know, Christians are called as such because we worship Christ; he is the central figure in our faith. In times of old, people saw the importance of Muhammad to Muslims and assumed "Muhammadan" was an accurate description. He is important, but only as the messenger of God; Muhammad is not The Message nor God. Certain sects within Islam, such as a few branches of Sufism, could be accurately called "Muhammdadan" owing to their usage of the phrase, "Nur ul Muhammad - The Light of Muhammad", but this is in very rare cases as the majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a oppress such teachings.

Mohammad is considered the seal of prophets in Islam. He is neither the message nor God, but the ONLY means through which the divine truth (supposedly) reached mankind. I still insist that the term Mohammadan does not necessarily mean a worshipper of Mohammad, but a person belonging to the faith spread by Mohammad and someone walking in his footsteps. It is a matter of how we interpret that "magic" word.

Muslims get offensive even when a non-Muslim refers to Mohammad without attaching the honorary title or salutation to his name. Muslims will always get offended as long as we deny their scripture and portray Mohammad as a false prophet.

I am quoting a verse from the Qur'an and asking a simple question how a Muslim that believes in the Qur'an and obeys it can show Christians mercy, ...

The issue at hand is that as non-Muslims, we're reading the Qur'an at face value and interpreting it in a very Protestant manner. Just as the Holy Orthodox Church instructs us at to the meaning of the Holy Bible, so too do Muslims have their "traditions" which instruct them of the meaning of the Qur'an. These traditions, known as tafsir and asbab ul-nazul, help the "Orthodox" Muslim understand revelations and context. So, just as when you cut yourself off from the Church's Holy Traditions, you get all sorts of bizarre and odd groups popping up (like Messianic Judaism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses,...); it's the same with Islamic tradition.

Theophilos, for an ex-Muslim, much of your knowledge of Islam seems to come second hand. This is the reason I'm having difficulty with your assertions of having been a Muslim.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

It's painfully evident that an understanding of Arabic/Islam is missing here. As with Hebrew, Arabic words have a tri-consonant root word. "Jihad" comes from the tri-consonant root word of "jhd -jahad". Contrary to popular Evangelical Christian understanding, the word actually means "To struggle, to make an effort". Theologically speaking, it takes on a moral tone. If I am wronged, I must make an effort, a struggle, to not make two wrongs. We see this countless times in our Scripture and Tradition, perhaps most importantly in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our sins (trespasses/wrongs), as we forgive those who sin against us." In Islam, it also takes on another meaning, "Defense, fight back". If your family, city, country is under attack, Islam gives pardon to those who would fight back. But the Qur'an makes it clear that once the aggression has ended against you, you are to stop as well. This aspect of "Jihad" has been reformulated by many extremist factions of Islam but classically speaking, this isn't what "Jihad" means.

Islam is a political ideology as well as a faith. There are many verses in the Qur'an that refute the typical assertion: "Jihad is allowed only for self-defense". On the contrary, the Qur'an makes it clear that Allah promises to make Islam the DOMINANT religion in the entire world.

He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. (Surah 9:33)

A person studying history may easily understand how Allah fulfilled his promise. More, read the narrative about Solomon in Surah 27 to be sure that Islam endorses and obligates the subjugation of non-Muslims even when non-Muslims do not attack Muslims or be aware of their presence.

The issue at hand is that as non-Muslims, we're reading the Qur'an at face value and interpreting it in a very Protestant manner. Just as the Holy Orthodox Church instructs us at to the meaning of the Holy Bible, so too do Muslims have their "traditions" which instruct them of the meaning of the Qur'an. These traditions, known as tafsir and asbab ul-nazul, help the "Orthodox" Muslim understand revelations and context. So, just as when you cut yourself off from the Church's Holy Traditions, you get all sorts of bizarre and odd groups popping up (like Messianic Judaism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses,...); it's the same with Islamic tradition.

First, Islam is hardly comparable with Christianity in terms of sacred scripture and tradition. This is because Christianity rejects the notion of dictation or direct revelation. How a Muslim sees the Qur'an is completely different from how a Christian sees the Gospel.

Does the tafsir forbid Muslims from naming themselves Mohammadans? Where is that written? Are the Christians not called NASRANI in the Qur'an? Why? Does the Qur'an confirm the Christian doctrine of Jesus' divinity when it refers to Jesus' followers as Nasrani (a word derived from Nazareth)?

More, you seem to be unaware of the fact that Muslims consider only the Qur'an authoritative if traditions and commentaries contradict the content of the former.

I am quoting a verse from the Qur'an and asking a simple question how a Muslim that believes in the Qur'an and obeys it can show Christians mercy, ...

The issue at hand is that as non-Muslims, we're reading the Qur'an at face value and interpreting it in a very Protestant manner. Just as the Holy Orthodox Church instructs us at to the meaning of the Holy Bible, so too do Muslims have their "traditions" which instruct them of the meaning of the Qur'an. These traditions, known as tafsir and asbab ul-nazul, help the "Orthodox" Muslim understand revelations and context. So, just as when you cut yourself off from the Church's Holy Traditions, you get all sorts of bizarre and odd groups popping up (like Messianic Judaism, Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses,...); it's the same with Islamic tradition.

Which is what I did in my previous post, I quoted sources like the Hadith and Tafsir Ibn Kathir which Muslims themselves use to interpret the Qur'an.

I agree with Nazarene that we can never trust Muslims. This is because Islam has the overt ideal of making the WHOLE WORLD subject to Islam and the law of the Qur'an by ANY means (including the sword).

Yes that is the essence of Jihad - to eliminate any other belief by any means necessary no matter how long it takes.

It's painfully evident that an understanding of Arabic/Islam is missing here. As with Hebrew, Arabic words have a tri-consonant root word. "Jihad" comes from the tri-consonant root word of "jhd -jahad". Contrary to popular Evangelical Christian understanding, the word actually means "To struggle, to make an effort". Theologically speaking, it takes on a moral tone. If I am wronged, I must make an effort, a struggle, to not make two wrongs. We see this countless times in our Scripture and Tradition, perhaps most importantly in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our sins (trespasses/wrongs), as we forgive those who sin against us." In Islam, it also takes on another meaning, "Defense, fight back". If your family, city, country is under attack, Islam gives pardon to those who would fight back. But the Qur'an makes it clear that once the aggression has ended against you, you are to stop as well. This aspect of "Jihad" has been reformulated by many extremist factions of Islam but classically speaking, this isn't what "Jihad" means.

I don't know where you get the idea that I got my understanding of Jihad from Evangelical Christian sources, when I have specifically quoted Islamic sources in my replies and will continue to do so.

To clarify I was specifically referring to Jihad al-kuffar as the other 4 types of Jihad (al-nafs, al-Shaitan, al-munafiqeen & al-faasiqeen) do not concern us because we are not Muslims. Where Jihad al-kuffar is concerned the physical or violent "struggling" is not merely for defensive purposes, otherwise how do you explain Muhammad's conquest of Mecca and his early followers conquests of the surrounding territories?

That Jihad al-kuffar is both a defensive and an offense struggle is illustrated by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, a renown scholar of Al-Azar University in his book Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography:

The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of Allah said: "I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages"… The concept of Holy War (Jihad) in Islam does not take into consideration whether defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of Allah’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case, it is the apex, the noblest Holy War. (Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti (page 134, 7th edition). http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/exegesis.htm)

And to prove that this is the classical understanding of Jihad al-kuffar, again I quote Ibn Kathir's Tafsir:

Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolaters in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them… He then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. After Muhammad’s death, his executor, friend, and Caliph, Abu Bakr, became the leader… On behalf of the Prophet , Abu Bakr… started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers, and the Persian fire worshippers. By the blessing of his mission, Allah opened the lands for him and brought down Caesar and Kisra and those who obeyed them among the servants. Abu Bakr spent their treasures in the cause of Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah had foretold would happen. This mission continued after Abu Bakr at the hands of he whom Abu Bakr chose to be his successor… Umar bin Al-Khattab. With Umar, Allah humiliated the disbelievers, suppressed the tyrants and hypocrites, and opened the eastern and western parts of the world. The treasures of various countries were brought to Umar from near and far provinces, and he divided them according to the legitimate and accepted method. Umar then died… Then, the Companions among the Muslims… agreed to choose after Umar, Uthman bin Affan... During Uthman's reign, Islam wore its widest garment and Allah's unequivocal proof was established in various parts of the world over the necks of the servants. Islam appeared in the eastern and western parts of the world and Allah's Word was elevated and His religion apparent. The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame a community, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They did this in reverence to Allah's statement, O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you.

None of these wars were defensive, as for the "self defense" wars against the Meccans, wasn't it the Muslims who started the fighting by hijacking the Meccan caravans and stealing their goods? So what did they expect?

A 14th century Muslim historian:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, the caliphate (spiritual), the royal (government and military) authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, trans. by Franz Rosenthal (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1958) Vol. 1:473)

And Muhammad himself:

Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59, Narrated Abu Huraira)

And his immediate followers like Abu Bakr:

"I’ll give you my best advice, force Islam on people until they accept it willingly, or by force. (Alfred Guillaume, "The Life of Muhammad," pages 668 and 669)

So yes the esseence of Jihad al-kuffar is to eliminate any other belief by any means necessary - including offensive warfare.

Articles are taken from Answering Islam, the most comprehensive Christian Apologetic site on Islam. It is generally an Evangelical site, but Catholic and Orthodox Christians have also contributed some its content.

Oh how I miss the days when theologians called Muslims what they really are (i.e. Muhammadans) and spoke of the "Judeo-Christian" world view instead of the "Abrahamic faiths".

I think the term Abrahamic faiths is fine, except it is very broad, including Arianiam, Islam, Rastafarianism and alot of other monotheist religions.

The term "judeo-Christian world view" is used often, but now that I think of it, it's alittle misleading.

1) Official Judaism conflicts with Christianity and official Judaism is based on the Old Testament which Christians believe has been overcome. So there often isn't a single worldview.

I am not sure you can talk about Jesus Christ as an integral part of a Judeo-Christian worldview, since official Judaism rejects Him. You could only say that the idea of a Messiah is important to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

2) if the term means the views of Christianity and official Judaism that don't conflict, then we could just call it "remnant Old Testament" worldview- the OT views that still remain in Christianity.

A more exact term is "the world views of Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity," or "the Judaic and Christian faiths."

This is a false analogy. The phrase "pretend Jew" is not similar to the word Mohammadan. You can say that the word Saracen is an offensive word when used for Muslims though.

Forgive me if I am pointing out a splinter in people's eyes, but I think the term "pretend Jew" could work if an gentile Christian is going to rabbinical synagogues, and telling everyone they are a religious or ethnic Jew. If an ethnic Jew says they are a "Christian Jew" or "Jewish Christian", then it's like saying "Italian Christian" because Jew has come to mean an ethnicity like gypsy etc.

I understand the argument that Jews are really made of lots of non-Jewish ethnicities, but you could say the same about other ethnicities- even Russians- if you look hard enough. They are all made up of little tribes that came together at some point. If someone is only 1/8 Jewish, you could criticize them if they emphasize how Jewish they are and use it to attack other people.

Interestingly, I think all Christians could start calling themselves religious "Jews" like Messianic Jews do, but that's just not part of our language, and the wording in John's Gospel and Paul's letters go against it. I am not sure whether "Messianic Judaism" is a misnomer. Use of the term Jew in St John's gospel suggests that it is, but on the other hand, I don't want to rush to judgement based on what a religion wants to call itself, and Christianity at least comes from Judaism.

The point is, if they belong to Sanhedrin-style Judaism, or are an ethnic Jew, they are not a pretend Jew. The term pretend Jew in those situations isn't grammatical, and an ethnic Jew could see it as a put-down.

==============================================================

Anyway, many ethnic assimilationist Jews like Einstein and Marx thought- and still think that Jewish ethnicity shouldn't mean anything. No reason to be discriminated against, no reason to get extra privileges in any country, no reason to care more or less about someone. This is the position in Christianity, and this is the position in the USA and in the Soviet Union, where your ethnicity is not supposed to mean anything. Personally I think it is a big advantage over "Germany," "Sweden," "Italy," where I can become an Italian citizen, but never become Italian. It's very unfortunate that Zionism grew up in the time of European nationalism.

Herzel's idea was all the other "civilized" NATIONALITIES have their own NATION-STATE. We need our own NATION-STATE too!

I agree with Einstein when he said:

Quote

the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power.

Quote of a post submitted to the Private Forum removed from the above post - PtA

Of course my friend. . Though this is not as simple as you think it is. The truth is honesty is not valued in Islam, the doctrine of Taqiya makes this very clear. Muhammad even approved of Muslims bowing to idols if felt compelled to do so as long as "their hearts remained firm in faith". Take it from me who almost got conned (by an ex-boyfriend who claim to be an apostate), and I probably would've if had I not done my research. Dawah (Islamic Evangelism) is not just "sharing the good news" it is war, it is a form of Jihad, an "Intellectual Jihad" if you will. Muslim apologists and even normal friendly Muslims (or crypto-Muslims in my case) are not above using deception when talking to you (the infidel) about their Faith. You really can never know for sure if a Muslim is telling you the truth.

Or if you are a Gentile, if a Jew is telling the Truth. It was an Conservative (just had dropped from Orthodox, which he was when he was studying in the shul in Jerusalem) Jew who first pointed out to me that the Talmud has no problem with Jews lying to Gentiles. It was also the one who pointed out my situation-that I am still considered Jewish under Jewish law (because of my maternal grandmother), although I've never been a Jew all my life-"it's just like a pearl: even if it is buried in mud, it is still a pearl."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Oh how I miss the days when theologians called Muslims what they really are (i.e. Muhammadans) and spoke of the "Judeo-Christian" world view instead of the "Abrahamic faiths".

I think the term Abrahamic faiths is fine, except it is very broad, including Arianiam, Islam, Rastafarianism and alot of other monotheist religions.

The term "judeo-Christian world view" is used often, but now that I think of it, it's alittle misleading.

1) Official Judaism conflicts with Christianity and official Judaism is based on the Old Testament which Christians believe has been overcome. So there often isn't a single worldview.

I am not sure you can talk about Jesus Christ as an integral part of a Judeo-Christian worldview, since official Judaism rejects Him. You could only say that the idea of a Messiah is important to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

2) if the term means the views of Christianity and official Judaism that don't conflict, then we could just call it "remnant Old Testament" worldview- the OT views that still remain in Christianity.

A more exact term is "the world views of Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity," or "the Judaic and Christian faiths."

I prefer Chrisitianity NT/OT Church. Judeo-Christian is a Christian term that Jews do not believe, Abrahamic a Muslim construct that people who should know better have adopted. The problem with the latter is that even if you argue that the Muslims, Jews, and Christians all look to Abraham (true enough), it leaves out Manicheanism, Mandaeans, etc. who also look to Abraham. It really is only useful when you are contrasted these faiths with the Dharmic religions or the Far Eastern etc.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth